ASLplease ASLplease:
In general, I would agree...a working wage will always be a working wage. However, a small increase would help these workers more than it would help me. Furthermore, of the 80 or so class action lawsuits against Walmart, many are about management knowingling engaging in intimidation tactics designed to get their employees to work off the clock. The is much more to be gained than just a marginal increase.
That tiny monetary increase is immediately absorbed by union dues.
ASLplease ASLplease:
I can sympathize with the challenge, implementing a union is much like implementing a quality system. There is a mountain of policy and procedure that needs to be debated and discussed so that it can replace the arbitrary and discriminatory decision making of the past. Some companies embrace the quality systems, but are fearful of loosing the ability to be arbitrary and discriminatory with the human resources management.
And some companies are fearful of the increased cost and frankly, the increased headache that comes along with a union.
For example, I've worked for two seperate companies within the same industry. Let's use Rexall and Shoppers Drug Mart as an example.
Both pay their employees a similar wage, the unionized one is higher, but only marginally. That, of course, is taken away due to their union dues. Being a manager of the unionized company I've noticed the union does very little to help those who bust their balls every day. You cannot reward that individual with more time or an increased wage. Unions protect the lowest common denominator and provide a marginal wage increase with the hoax that conditions are "improved".
Employees aren't always treated fairly in a unionized environment either.